A major decision that will impact Minnesotans’ privacy rights is waiting to be heard in the state’s court of Appeals.
It all started off simply enough. Jason and Jackie Wiebesick were a Golden Valley couple who lived in a duplex. One day, officials from the city approached them to ask permission to inspect their home. The stated reason was to collect information so as to make a decision over whether to renew the Wiebesick’s rental license.
Disturbed by the prospect of unfamiliar people walking around their home, the Wiebesick’s turned down the inspectors’ request. One might think it would have ended there, but the city saw to it that it didn’t.
Taking the case to court, Golden Valley authorities implored a county judge to issue a warrant overriding the Wiebesick’s objections and allowing them into the house. Tellingly, the judge refused their request for a warrant, prompting the city to reach even higher.
See video about the case on the next page:
Minnesota is another wacko state like Washington, Oregon, and California.
This is why the 2nd amendment was written.
It is a rental property, and the city must assure safety of all rental properties. This is standard in most municipalities. This would not happen to a home you own.
The Officials can think the world is flat that does not make it so. Rental properties normally require a Certificate of Occupancy – that inspection is what allows the city to state yes/not the unit is habitable! If they say yes – from there on the unit is the persons home similar to a home owner! If they have reason to believe something has changed since the CO was granted they go to court and site their reasoning to obtain a warrant! Has all freedoms been lost in America?
So tenants have less rights than home owners?
Did you read the article? The couple that refused lived there. Tenants would always be free to allow the inspection.
Not so. Obvious issues might trigger an inspection. E.G. Bad roof, broken windows sagging foundation, but even then, there would be a procedure the city would have to go through–at least in sane areas. The exception would be when you sign up under a program such as section 8. Then you AGREE as a requirement of the program to inspections, typically annually.
But those inspections would be of the units covered under the program, not your own apartment in the building.
What else do you expect from a state that thinks being on Saturday Night Live qualifies you to be a Senator.
not many ways they can search someone home without a warrant. one is to have a person on parole or probation in your home. or you could have a fugitive inside your home. if they chase a person fleeing from them. there are a few more reason. but its still not right they can give warrant in just a few minutes today
Nope!
The landlord probably has the right to inspect the property after giving notice since they are renters. I don’t see why they don’t require the landlord to attest to the property condition and let it go at that.
screw ya,ll
suck my di–k you stupid$#%&!@*wipes.
Stupid city.